TRILLER EXHIBIT 1021-001
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/29/21 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Frank E. Scherkenbach (CA SBN 142549)
`scherkenback@fr.com
`Adam J. Kessel (pro hac vice)
`kessel@fr.com
`Jeffrey Shneidman (pro hac vice)
`shneidman@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tel: 617-542-5070 / Fax: 617-542-8906
`
`Michael R. Headley (CA SBN 220834)
`headley@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Tel: 650-839-5070
`Facsimile: (650) 839-5071
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`BYTEDANCE LTD., BYTEDANCE, INC.
`TIKTOK, INC., and TIKTOK PTE. LTD,
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`(OAKLAND DIVISION)
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`BYTEDANCE LTD., BYTEDANCE, INC.
`TIKTOK, INC., and TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TRILLER, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`OPPOSITION TO TRILLER’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`REGARDING SECOND, THIRD, AND
`FOURTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF IN
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(DKT. NO. 58)
`
`Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`Date: November 5, 2021
`Time: 9:00 AM
`Courtroom: 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`OPP. TO TRILLER’S MOT. FOR JUDGMEN T ON THE PLEADINGS
` Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1021-002
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/29/21 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AS PLEADED ............................................................ 2
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................... 4
`
`A. Judgment on the Pleadings .......................................................................................... 4
`
`B. Subject Matter Eligibility ............................................................................................ 5
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 6
`
`A. The Facts as Pleaded in TikTok’s SAC Preclude Judgment on the
`Pleadings ..................................................................................................................... 6
`
`B. Open Factual and Legal Issues Prevent Resolution of the § 101 Inquiry ................... 6
`
`1. Factual Disputes Prevent Resolution of the § 101 Inquiry ............................. 7
`
`2. Claim Construction Disputes Prevent Resolution of the § 101
`Inquiry ............................................................................................................. 8
`
`C. Triller’s Motion Fails on the Merits .......................................................................... 10
`
`1. The Asserted Patents Are Patent-Eligible Under Alice Step 1...................... 10
`
`2. The Asserted Patents Are Also Patent-Eligible Under Alice
`Step 2............................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`OPP. TO TRILLER’S MOT. FOR JUDGMEN T ON THE PLEADINGS
` Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1021-003
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/29/21 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................... 5, 6, 8
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................. 10, 11, 12, 13
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................... 13
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................................. 4, 6
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................. 6, 8
`
`BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................................... 13, 15
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................................. 4, 6
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................... 5, 7, 8
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc.,
`No. 4:19-cv-01315-JSW, 2019 WL 10734767 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019) .............................. 5
`
`Chavez v. U.S.,
`683 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2012)............................................................................................... 5, 8
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................... 14
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,
`906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................... 10, 11, 15
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`ii
`
`OPP. TO TRILLER’S MOT. FOR JUDGMEN T ON THE PLEADINGS
` Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1021-004
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/29/21 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`Fleming v. Pickard,
`581 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 5, 6
`
`Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH,
`942 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................... 10, 11, 13
`
`NetSoc, LLC v. Match Grp., LLC,
`838 F. App’x 544 (Fed. Cir. 2020).......................................................................................... 14
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc.,
`965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Pebble Tide LLC v. Arlo Techs., Inc.,
`No. 19-769-LPS, 2020 WL 509183 (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2020) .................................................... 8
`
`RideApp, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-07152-JST, 2019 WL 7834759 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2019) ....................... 6, 8, 9, 10
`
`Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc.,
`950 F.2d 714 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Salwan v. Iancu,
`825 F. App’x 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020).......................................................................................... 14
`
`In re Salwan,
`681 F. App’x 938 (Fed. Cir. 2017).......................................................................................... 14
`
`Search & Social Media Partners, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`346 F. Supp. 3d 626 (D. Del. 2018) .................................................................................. 13, 14
`
`Silver State Intellectual Techs. v. Facebook Inc.,
`314 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................................................. 13
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................... 13
`
`Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`252 F. Supp. 3d 17 (D. Mass. 2017) ....................................................................................... 14
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LP Elecs. USA, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`OPP. TO MOT. FOR JUDGMEN T ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1021-005
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/29/21 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................... 12
`
`Zkey Investments, LLC v. Facebook Inc.,
`225 F. Supp. 3d 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2016)................................................................................... 14
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`OPP. TO MOT. FOR JUDGMEN T ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1021-006
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/29/21 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`First, whether Triller has failed to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, where
`
`the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 54) (“SAC”) filed by Plaintiffs (collectively, “TikTok”)
`
`alleges facts that, taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to TikTok, are sufficient to
`
`state a facially plausible claim for relief with respect to U.S. Patents 9,648,132 (“’132 patent”),
`
`9,992,322 (“’322 patent”), and 9,294,430 (“’430 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`
`
`Second, whether Triller has failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating unpatentability of
`
`all twenty asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by clear and convincing evidence, where the facts
`
`set forth in the SAC and the Asserted Patents demonstrate that the claims are directed to specific
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`technical solutions to problems uniquely arising in the mobile device and network arts that utilize
`
`11
`
`non-conventional elements and combinations of elements.
`
`12
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`13
`
`
`
`Triller’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 58) (“Mot.”) should be denied at
`
`14
`
`the outset because the facts alleged in the SAC, taken as true and construed in the light most
`
`15
`
`favorable to TikTok, demonstrate that the asserted claims are directed to technical solutions to
`
`16
`
`problems uniquely arising in the computer arts that are patent-eligible under § 101. Triller’s
`
`17
`
`conclusory, unsupported assertions to the contrary are afforded no weight in determining the
`
`18
`
`sufficiency of TikTok’s SAC at the Rule 12 stage. Thus, Triller’s Motion is fatally flawed.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Moreover, while subject matter eligibility is a legal question, the inquiry involves
`
`20
`
`underlying factual questions and claim construction issues. To the extent that Triller disputes the
`
`21
`
`facts alleged in TikTok’s SAC, discovery, including expert discovery, will be required to resolve
`
`22
`
`those factual disputes. Eligibility under § 101 is also dependent on the constructions accorded to the
`
`23
`
`asserted claims by the Court. While Triller fails to address claim construction in its Motion, it is
`
`24
`
`clear from Triller’s arguments that a number of terms require construction as a predicate to the
`
`25
`
`§ 101 analysis. The Court cannot meaningfully engage on the § 101 question until these factual and
`
`26
`
`legal questions can be resolved on a developed record. Triller’s Motion should be denied.
`
`27
`
`
`
`Even if the Court reaches the merits of Triller’s Motion at this stage, it is clear that Triller’s
`
`28
`
`§ 101 arguments are flawed, and its Motion should be denied on that basis as well. Triller
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`OPP. TO TRILLER’S MOT. FOR JUDGMEN T ON THE PLEADINGS
` Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1021-007
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/29/21 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`incorrectly alleges that the asserted claims are directed merely to the abstract idea of organizing
`
`human activity in a social network, implemented on a generic computer. See Mot. at 5. To reach this
`
`faulty conclusion, Triller ignores the specific technical features of the asserted claims and, having
`
`eliminated those features, boils down what remains to their “gist” to suggest that the claims are
`
`directed to nothing more than routine human activities. See id. at 5-9. But TikTok’s SAC and the
`
`specification of the Asserted Patents1 make clear that the asserted claims are directed to a specific
`
`improved system for efficiently accessing and transferring electronic data, including music track
`
`and social network data, using the limited hardware of mobile devices transmitting data over low-
`
`bandwidth wireless networks. See SAC at ¶¶ 16, 19-23, 25-26. Under the well-developed body of
`
`10
`
`§ 101 law post-Alice, these technical features are patent-eligible under Step 1 of the Alice inquiry.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Moreover, even under Step 2 of the Alice test, the asserted claims are patent-eligible because
`
`12
`
`they provide for significantly more than a method of organizing human activity. Again, Triller
`
`13
`
`ignores the claim language and focuses on general concepts that Triller alleges were well-known,
`
`14
`
`routine, and conventional at the time of the patented inventions. See Mot. at 10-15. When
`
`15
`
`considering the specific implementations recited by the claims, however, it is clear that the claimed
`
`16
`
`features and combinations of features were not generic or conventional at the time of the inventions.
`
`17
`
`Indeed, the praise and broad adoption of the MusicStation technology platform that was created by
`
`18
`
`the named inventors and embodied the claimed inventions of the Asserted Patents (as alleged in the
`
`19
`
`SAC) constitutes compelling evidence of the technical innovation of the asserted claims. When
`
`20
`
`these facts are taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to TikTok—as is required at
`
`21
`
`this stage—they demonstrate that the asserted claims are unequivocally patentable under § 101.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AS PLEADED
`
`As pleaded in the SAC, the inventions disclosed and claimed in the TikTok Asserted Patents
`
`24
`
`were foundational to making digital content downloads and social networking possible on mobile
`
`25
`
`devices. In May 2007, which is the latest priority date for the Asserted Patents, mobile phones were
`
`26
`
`predominantly limited to communicating voice, text, and image data, while digital audio players
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`1 The specifications of the TikTok Asserted Patents are substantially the same, and references to a
`particular Asserted Patent should be understood to refer to all of the Asserted Patents.
`OPP. TO MOT. FOR JUDGMEN T ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`2
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1021-008
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/29/21 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`(“DAPs”, e.g. mp3 players, including the then-leading Apple iPod) had only recently surpassed
`
`portable CD players as the preferred method for consuming content on the go. SAC at ¶ 11. Unlike
`
`today’s smartphones, the devices in 2007 had minimal processing power and were limited to basic
`
`operations (e.g., sending and receiving a phone call or text message, or playing an mp3 track).
`
`As detailed in the SAC and the Asserted Patents, this meant most mobile devices of the time
`
`were unable to access and download digital content directly. Id. at ¶¶ 11-12, 16, 20, 23; ’322 patent
`
`at 3:26-37, 5:35-42. Instead, users in the mid-2000s typically had to perform a two-step process to
`
`load content onto their devices, including first downloading the content on a desktop computer, and
`
`then transferring the content from the desktop computer to the DAP over a wired connection such as
`
`10
`
`a USB cable. Id. This cumbersome and inefficient mechanism for downloading and transferring
`
`11
`
`content was also necessary because wireless computer networks (e.g., Wi-Fi networks) were still in
`
`12
`
`their infancy, and content delivery over the low-bandwidth 3G cellular networks of the time was
`
`13
`
`largely impractical. SAC at ¶¶ 12-13.
`
`14
`
`Moreover, at the time of the inventions, the industry faced significant challenges keeping
`
`15
`
`digital content secure. Id. at ¶ 14; see ’322 patent at 5:31-34, 56:26-60:23, Fig. 71. The ability to
`
`16
`
`download and share content via DAPs, writable CDs, and peer-to-peer networks (e.g., Napster and
`
`17
`
`LimeWire) resulted in rampant illegal content distribution (so-called “digital piracy”). SAC at ¶ 14.
`
`18
`
`The ease with which digital content could be “pirated” during the early- and mid-2000s was
`
`19
`
`attributable largely to deficiencies in digital rights management (“DRM”) technology. Id. at ¶ 15.
`
`20
`
`As pleaded in the SAC, the inventors developed the claimed invention s to address these and
`
`21
`
`other technical problems. See id. at ¶¶ 16-26; see also, e.g., ’322 patent at 1:41-8:4, Fig. 165.2 For
`
`22
`
`example, the specification explains that the claimed technology “enables an end-user to browse and
`
`23
`
`search music content on a remote server using a wireless network; to download music content from
`
`24
`
`that remote server using the wireless network and to playback and manage that downloaded music
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`2 The inventors filed PCT Application PCT/GB2007/001675 on May 8, 2007, to which all three of
`the Asserted Patents claim priority. The ’430 patent was filed on August 5, 2013, and issued on
`March 22, 2016. The ’132 patent was filed on February 12, 2016, and issued on May 9, 2017. The
`’322 patent was filed on March 29, 2017, and issued on June 5, 2018. Notably, this means that each
`patent was examined and issued after the landmark patent eligibility decision in Alice Corp. Pty.
`Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), and after the PTO issued its post-Alice guidance. See
`2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74,618 (Dec. 16, 2014).
`OPP. TO MOT. FOR JUDGMEN T ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`3
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1021-009
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/29/21 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`content.” ’322 patent at 3:26-37; SAC at ¶ 20. “[H]ence . . . the functionality will be better than any
`
`DAP because it will be possible to search and acquire new music directly from the device over the
`
`wireless network,” which “is a far more natural process than acquiring music via a web based on-
`
`line catalogue using a desktop machine and then synching a DAP with the desktop machine.” ’322
`
`patent at 3:30-37. The claimed application also provides “user community features such as making
`
`friends and sharing playlists” that were not previously available on mobile devices given the limits
`
`on mobile device processing power and wireless network bandwidth at the time. Id. at 4:1-4.
`
`These technical solutions were also embodied in the MusicStation mobile phone software
`
`described in the specification. See, e.g., id. at 2:56-8:4 (describing MusicStation as “[a]n
`
`10
`
`implementation” of the “present invention”); SAC at ¶ 21. MusicStation provided a means for
`
`11
`
`“innovative new models like AYCE (all-you-can-eat—i.e., unlimited [content] downloads) and user
`
`12
`
`community features” on mobile phones. ’322 patent at 4:1-4. At the time of its release in 2008, the
`
`13
`
`industry praised MusicStation as “a fundamental change in the way the mass-market consumes
`
`14
`
`digital music” and an effective way to combat digital piracy. SAC at ¶ 22. The patented
`
`15
`
`MusicStation platform was a factory-installed application on millions of devices offered by mobile
`
`16
`
`network operators including Vodafone, Telenor ASA, Vodacom, and nearly twenty others. Id. at ¶
`
`17
`
`21. The software was available on mobile phones from some of the largest manufacturers, including
`
`18
`
`Sony Ericsson, Nokia, and Samsung, and it hosted DRM-protected music from the catalogs of all of
`
`19
`
`the “big four” music companies, including Universal, Sony BMG, EMI, and Warner. Id. at ¶¶ 21-
`
`20
`
`22. Even today, the claimed technologies remain foundational to mobile-based services providing
`
`21
`
`digital content and social networking, including Plaintiffs’ TikTok and Defendant’s Triller
`
`22
`
`applications at issue in this case. See id. at ¶¶ 27-33, 55-87.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A.
`
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A claim is sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment on the pleadings when it alleges
`
`26
`
`“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
`
`27
`
`U.S. 544, 547 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In deciding a Rule 12(c) motion,
`
`28
`
`the Court “must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`OPP. TO MOT. FOR JUDGMEN T ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1021-0010
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/29/21 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`most favorable to the non-moving party.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009).3
`
`Patent eligibility can be determined under Rule 12(c) “only when there are no factual
`
`allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law.” Aatrix
`
`Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also
`
`Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01315-JSW, 2019 WL 10734767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
`
`“[P]lausible factual allegations may preclude dismissing a case under § 101 where, for example,
`
`‘nothing on th[e] record . . . refutes those allegations as a matter of law or justifies dismissal under
`
`[Rule 12].” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting
`
`BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`B.
`
`Subject Matter Eligibility
`
`The Supreme Court in Alice set forth a two-step framework for assessing patent eligibility
`
`12
`
`under § 101. Under Step 1, the Court determines whether the claims at issue are directed to a law of
`
`13
`
`nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea—the three narrow exceptions to patent eligibility.
`
`14
`
`Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If they are, the Court proceeds to Step 2, where it “consider[s] the elements
`
`15
`
`of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional
`
`16
`
`elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Id. “The second step
`
`17
`
`of the Alice test is satisfied when the claim limitations involve more than performance of well-
`
`18
`
`understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Berkheimer v.
`
`19
`
`HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v.
`
`20
`
`Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Alice, 573 U.S. at 225)).
`
`21
`
`“[W]hether a claim recites patent eligible subject matter is a question of law which may
`
`22
`
`contain underlying facts.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368. For instance, “[t]he question of whether a
`
`23
`
`claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled
`
`24
`
`artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact” that “must be proven by clear and convincing
`
`25
`
`evidence.” Id.; see also BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Moreover, “it will ordinarily be desirable—and often necessary—to resolve claim
`
`
`3 “Analysis under Rule 12(c) is ‘substantially identical’ to analysis under Rule 12(b)(6) because,
`under both rules, ‘a court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true,
`entitle the plaintiff to a legal remedy.’” Chavez v. U.S., 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012).
`OPP. TO MOT. FOR JUDGMEN T ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`5
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1021-0011
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/29/21 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`construction disputes prior to a § 101 analysis, for the determination of patent eligibility requires a
`
`full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v.
`
`Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Where “there are
`
`claim construction disputes at the [Rule 12] stage . . . the court must proceed by adopting the non-
`
`moving party’s constructions . . . or the court must resolve the disputes to whatever extent is needed
`
`to conduct the § 101 analysis.” Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1125; see also RideApp, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc., No. 18-
`
`cv-07152-JST, 2019 WL 7834759, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“[T]he Court finds it appropriate to defer
`
`ruling on the question of subject matter eligibility until after claim construction.”).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Facts as Pleaded in TikTok’s SAC Preclude Judgment on the Pleadings
`
`Triller’s motion fails because TikTok’s SAC alleges facts that, when taken as true, state a
`
`12
`
`claim for which relief is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
`
`13
`
`Indeed, the SAC dedicates nearly ten pages to factual allegations that demonstrate the patentability
`
`14
`
`of the asserted claims under § 101. See SAC at ¶¶ 10-26. Taking “all factual allegations in the
`
`15
`
`[SAC] as true and constru[ing] them in the light most favorable” to TikTok, as the law requires,
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Triller is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fleming, 581 F.3d at 925.
`
`The common specification of the Asserted Patents, incorporated into the SAC, further
`
`18
`
`details the claimed inventions. Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1128 (identifying “the sources properly
`
`19
`
`considered on a motion to dismiss, such as the complaint, the patent, and materials subject to
`
`20
`
`judicial notice”). It discloses novel solutions that are specific, technical improvements over the prior
`
`21
`
`art, which addressed technical problems unique to the fields of mobile devices and device networks,
`
`22
`
`in particular the ability to access and transmit large data sets (e.g., digital content and social network
`
`23
`
`data) to devices of limited processing power over limited-bandwidth communication networks. See,
`
`24
`
`e.g., ’322 patent at 1:41-8:4, 11:41-16:40. After the Supreme Court’s landmark Alice decision, the
`
`25
`
`USPTO granted all three Asserted Patents, which underscores the eligibility of the claims under
`
`26
`
`§ 101, since each claim of the Asserted Patents has already been allowed by the USPTO under the
`
`27
`
`heightened scrutiny applied to claims directed to computer-centric technologies, including software.
`
`28
`
`B.
`
`Open Factual and Legal Issues Prevent Resolution of the § 101 Inquiry
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`OPP. TO MOT. FOR JUDGMEN T ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1021-0012
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/29/21 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1.
`
`Factual Disputes Prevent Resolution of the § 101 Inquiry
`
`Throughout its Motion, Triller argues that the asserted claims of the TikTok Asserted
`
`Patents should fail under Step 2 of the Alice framework because certain hardware components,
`
`communication protocols, and software architectures were allegedly routine, conventional, and
`
`well-understood techniques for practicing an abstract idea. Mot. at 6, 10-15. In particular, Triller
`
`claims that hardware including a “non-transitory storage medium,” “portable wireless computing
`
`device,” “wireless connection,” “remote server,” and “smartphone device” were generic as of the
`
`mid-2000s and were present in the prior art. Id. at 18-19. Similarly, Triller asserts that “meta-data”,
`
`an “HTTP connection,” “multithreaded” and “multitasking” computer architectures, and “wireless
`
`10
`
`communications technology” in general were all similarly well-understood, routine, and
`
`11
`
`conventional at the time. Id. at 19, 21-22, 24. But “[w]hether something is well-understood, routine,
`
`12
`
`and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.”
`
`13
`
`Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369. Based on the only record before the Court—namely, the SAC—the
`
`14
`
`features of the asserted claims were neither routine, conventional, nor well-understood to persons of
`
`15
`
`skill in the art at the time of the claimed inventions. To the extent Triller disagrees, these factual
`
`16
`
`disputes prevent resolution of the § 101 question at this time. Id. at 1368.
`
`17
`
`Triller points to prior art that allegedly discloses certain claim elements, such as
`
`18
`
`multithreaded and multitasking computer functions (Mot. at 22-23), but “the mere fact that
`
`19
`
`something is disclosed in a piece of prior art . . . does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and
`
`20
`
`conventional.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369. Indeed, nearly all patentable inventions rely on
`
`21
`
`combinations of elements that were previously known. See, e.g., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`
`22
`
`722 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir.
`
`23
`
`1991). The facts pleaded in the SAC demonstrate that the features and combinations of features
`
`24
`
`recited in the claims are neither conventional, routine, nor well-understood.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Of greater import, however, is that Triller’s analysis fails to consider whether any of those
`
`elements—as implemented in the claims—were conventional, routine, or well-understood at the
`
`27
`
`time. While Triller asserts that multitasking and multithreading were each “well-known computer
`
`28
`
`functionality at the time the patents-in-suit were filed” (Mot. at 13), Triller fails to consider or to
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`OPP. TO MOT. FOR JUDGMEN T ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1021-0013
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/29/21 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`demonstrate that “a multitasking architecture [configured] to balance the computational demands”
`
`of network access, user interface operations, media operations, or a DRM program were generic at
`
`the time of the patented inventions. See, e.g., ’322 patent at claims 31-32, 56. Similarly, while
`
`Triller claims that “the use of meta-data was also well-known and conventional” (Mot. at 19),
`
`Triller fails to cite evidence in support of its assertion4 and never addresses the particular
`
`implementation of meta-data recited by the asserted